Madhya Pradesh Court January 1954 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Randhira Vs. the State
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-16-1954
Reported in: 1954CriLJ872
Dixit, J.1. The appellant Randhira has been convicted by the Special Judge of Gwalior appointed under Section 6, Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1952 of an offence under Section 165A, Penal Code and sentenced to four months rigorous imprisonment. The accused has appealed both against the conviction and sentence.2. The facts of this case are very brief. It was alleged by the prosecution that a miscellaneous case, to which Randhira was a party, was pending before Mr. Joshi Naib Tehsildar of Picchore; that on 16-1-1950 when Mr. Joshi came out of his house and was proceeding to the court, the appellant Randhira offered him two currency notes of ten rupees each and asked him to dispose of his case. Mr. Joshi at once made a report to the police against the appellant. The appellant admitted the recovery of two currency notes of Rs. 10/- each from his possession. He also admitted that he had offered the notes to Mr. Joshi. He, however, said that he intended to give the notes to Mr, Joshi as fees f...
Ramgopal Chotelal Vs. the State
Court: Madhya Pradesh
Decided on: Jan-08-1954
Reported in: 1954CriLJ1178
Nevaskar, J.1. Accused Ramgopal was prosecuted for offences under Section 409, I.P.C., in three different cases Nos. 581 of 1949, 582/1949 and 583/1949 and was jointly tried before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Mhow, who found him guilty and sentenced him to three month's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 10/- in respect of each of the offences. The sentences of imprisonment were to run concurrently,2. Accused preferred an appeal to the Sessions Judge, indore, who confirmed his conviction.3. Aggrieved by this decision the accused has preferred this revision application.4. Prosecution case against him is that he was employed in the Post Office at Mhow and was working as an Assistant Parcel Clerk between 13-5-1949 and 10-7-1949. In addition to his duties as Assistant Parcel Clerk, he was assigned additional work as Mall Clerk during this period.It is said that during this period he was entrusted with three parcels No. 163 deliverable to Self Ridge India, Mhow from whom Rs. 398-9-0...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›